Transcript Beyond Theoretical Discussions: Operationalizing Knowledge

From Concept to Market: Linking
Research, Development and
Production Activities
Joseph P. Lane
Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu
School of Public Health & Health Professions
University at Buffalo (SUNY)
Funded by NIDRR, US Department of Education, PR# H133A060028
Learning Objectives
1. Participants will be able to distinguish between three
Methodologies (scientific research, engineering
development, industrial production), and contrast the
three States of Knowledge they generate.
2. Participants will be able to discuss examples of
literature supporting each of the nine Activity Stages
and nine Decision gates, and explain why Stages have
multiple steps.
3. Participants will be able to name and describe at least
one technical analysis tool and one market analysis tool
relevant to each of the three Phases of activity.
Need to Knowledge Model*
A Prior to Grant Perspective for S&E
R&D and Technological Innovation
*Learning Objective 1
Range of Public Support for S&E Activity
• Grant-based Scientific Research –
Exploration to discover new knowledge about
physical world (NSF/NIH) – Works well!
• Sponsored R&D for Innovation – Application
of S&E outputs for commercial exploitation
intended to generate socio-economic impacts –
Lots of Problems!
• Contract R&D for Production – Application of
S&E outputs to deliver specified products with
national value (DoD/DoE) – Works well!
Sponsored R&D Programs with
Innovation/Impact intent
• All US Agencies: SBIR/STTR Programs.
• NSF – Engineering Research Centers (ERC); Industry/University
Cooperative Research Centers (I/U CRC); Innovation Corps (I-Corp).
• NIH – Program on Public/Private Partnerships.
• NIST – Technology Innovation Program (TIP).
• USDE – Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC); Field
Initiated Development (FID).
• Canada – Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC); Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR).
• European Union – Research Framework Programme;
Competiveness & Innovation Framework Programme.
Innovation & Impact
• Traditionally, each sector defined terms in own narrow
context, unconcerned with downstream market
activities or broader societal benefits, comfortable in
status quo budgets and paradigms. But that
applecart is tipping . . .
• National Science Board (2012) – “Innovation is
defined as the introduction of new or significantly
improved products (goods or services), processes
organizational methods, and marketing methods, in
internal business practices or in the open
marketplace.” (OECD/Eurostat, 2005).
“Translating Three States of
Knowledge: Discovery, Invention
& Innovation”
Lane & Flagg (2010)
Implementation Science
http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/9
Clarification: 3 States of Knowledge
 Scientific Research methodology ►
Conceptual Discovery
 Engineering Development methodology ►
Prototype Invention
 Industrial Production Methodology ►
Market Innovation
Discovery State
 Scientific Research methods create new to the
world knowledge.
 Process – Empirical analysis reveals novel insights
regarding key variables, precipitated by push/pull.
 Output – Conceptual Discovery expressed as
manuscript or presentation.
 Legal IP Status – Copyright protection.
 Value – Novelty as first articulation of new concept
as contributed to knowledge base.
Invention State
 Engineering Development methods combine
and apply knowledge as functional artifacts.
 Process – Trial and error experimentation and
testing demonstrates proof-of-concept,
initiated through supply/demand forces.
 Output – Prototype Invention claimed and
embodied as operational prototype.
 Legal IP Status – Patent protection.
 Value – Novelty of conceptual discovery +
Feasibility of tangible invention.
Innovation State
 Industrial Production methods codify knowledge in
products/components positioned as new/improved.
 Process – Systematic specification of components
and attributes yields final form.
 Output – Market Innovation embodied as viable
device or service in a defined context, initiated
through a commercial market opportunity.
 Legal IP Status – Trademark protection.
 Value – Novelty + Feasibility + Utility defined as
revenue to company and function to customers.
Importance of Untangling Terms
• Each Method has own rigor and jargon.
• Actors are trained and operate in one method
and tend to over-value that method.
• Academic & Government sectors dominate “STI”
policy at the expense of Industry – the only
sector with time and money constraints. . .
• Methods are actually inter-dependent, while
traditional dichotomies are all complementary
factors supporting innovation outcomes.
Way Forward: Integrate Conceptual
but Differentiate Operational
 Consider three distinct states: Know role of Research,
Development and Production methods in context of each
project – plan and budget accordingly.
 Engage Industry early: Government/Academic projects
intended to benefit society fail to cross gaps (death
valley vs. Darwinian sea) to business & open markets.
 Apply evidence-based framework: Link three methods;
Communicate knowledge in three states; Integrate key
stakeholder who will determine eventual success.
Outputs/Outcomes/Impacts from R or D Methods
are distant from Socio-Economic Impacts
“Modeling Technology Innovation:
How the integration of science, engineering
and industry methods combine to generate
beneficial socio-economic impacts.”
Stone & Lane (2012).
Implementation Science
http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/44/
Elements of NtK Model
• Full range of activities includes 3 Phases, 9
Stages & Gates, Steps, Tasks and Tips.
• Supported by primary/secondary findings
(scoping review of 250+ research and practice
articles), and A/T case examples.
• Logic Model orientation – “Begin with the end in
mind” (Stephen Covey), and work backwards
through process to achieve it.
Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model for Technological Innovations
Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model
• Orientation – Actors engaged in innovation “need to know”:
Problem/Solution; Methods/Outputs; Stakeholder roles; and
Goal in context of beneficial socio-economic impacts.
• Integration – Product Development Managers Association
(PDMA) New Product Development practices (implementation);
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Knowledge to
Action Model (communication).
• Validation – Stage-Gate structure populated with supporting
evidence (1,000+ excerpts) from scoping review of academic
and industry literature
, along with links to tools for
completing recommended technical and market analyses
.
Need to Knowledge Model
http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowled
gebase/model.php
NtK Model Key Findings
Evidence base of Academic and
Industrial Literature since 1985
Learning Objective #2
Objective 2: Lessons from Literature
• Literature from both Industry and Academia
converge on “Best Practices” in New Product
Development, where due diligence supplants ad
hoc approaches and tests assumptions.
• Steps/Activities/Tips all point toward Best
Practices validated through numerous iterations
under a variety of field conditions.
• Stage/Step level activity do not require a linear
progression, but Decision Gates cannot be
properly addressed without them.
Knowledge Communication –
3 Strategies for 3 States
Delivering Solutions to Problems involves
progress across three Knowledge States
Research → Discovery →Translation → Utilization ↓
Development→ Invention→ Transfer→ Integration ↓
Production → Innovation → Transaction → Lifecycle ↓
Evidence from Scoping Review
• Literature Search; Scoping Review & Narrative
Synthesis.
• Over 800 excerpts from over 200 academic and industry
journal articles substantiate stage/gate model.
• Excerpts cluster differently for each Phase of R/D/P.
• Review aggregated findings:
http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowledgebase/research.php?mo
del=3
Search Evidence Base
• Search evidence base by keyword:
http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowledgebase/searc
h.php
Number of Excerpts by Code in the Research/Discovery Phase
Cross Functional Teams / Integration
19
Code
Market Conditions
18
NPD Process
15
Consumer Needs Identification
13
Stakeholder Involvement
13
NPD Proficiency
Preliminary Assessments
12
10
Number of Excerpts
Number of Excerpts by Code in the Development/Invention Phase
Tools
16
Code
Cross Functional Teams / Integration
15
Stakeholder Involvement
11
Communication/Feedback
10
Consumer Needs Identification
9
Market Conditions
9
Number of Excerpts
Number of Excerpts by Code in the Production/Innovation Phase
Code
Tools
11
Cross Functional Teams / Integration
7
NPD Process
7
Lead Time/Time to Market
5
Stage-Gate
5
Sales or Profits
4
Market Conditions
4
Number of Excerpts
NtK Model’s Toolbox
Tools for Technical, Marketing
and Customer Analyses
Learning Objective #3
Objective 3: Requirements for
Technical & Marketing Analysis
• Analyses are required throughout all three
Phases, while Grantees are only familiar
with a sub-set of them.
• Technical, market and customer analyses
address three different yet equally critical
issues for technological innovation.
• Knowing what you don’t know but need to
do is critical to creating a successful team.
“Gamification” of
Technological Innovation
Progress through three
Methods of Knowledge
Generation, and the
effective Communication
of three Knowledge
States, may be circuitous
and iterative, punctuated
and prolonged, risky and
unpredictable, yet still be
planned, implemented
and accomplished
through the deliberate
and systematic efforts of
key stakeholders.
NtK Model’s Toolbox
Go to tools for Technical, Marketing
and Customer Analyses
http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowledgebase/model.php
Summary: NtK Model Utility
• Clarifies processes and mechanisms underlying
technology-based Innovation, by integrating
academic & industry literature.
• Establishes linkages between three distinct
methods and their respective knowledge outputs
for implementation/communication.
• Offers structure to sponsors & grantees for
program/project planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation.
Summary: NtK Model Value
• Technology Grantees:
– Proposal structure – Review Panel liked.
– RERC Tech Transfer/ SBIR Phase III Plans.
• Program Sponsors:
– Assess proposals; Track progress.
– Compliance enforced – Funding continuation?
• Organizations:
– PDMA’s “The Source”; Tech Transfer Tactics;
– CIHR; CEUD; DIT; ATIA; AAATE.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This is a presentation of the Center on Knowledge Translation
for Technology Transfer, which is funded by the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S.
Department of Education, under grant #H133A080050.
The opinions contained in this presentation are those of the
grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S. Department of Education.